Saleem Bhai And Others vs State of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 December, 2002,
Appeal (civil) 8518 of 2002 AIR 2003 SC 759
Facts of The Case
Findings of the High Court
- The appellant filed an application under order VII Rule 11 of the code
of civil procedure,1908 (C.P.C.) in the suits and praying the court to dismiss the
suits on the grounds urged by the appellant. It is stated there that the plaint
is liable to be rejected under clause (a) and clause (d) of Rule 11 of order VII
C.P.C. There was also an application by the appellant under section 151 of C.P.C.
regarding prayer to the court that they first decide the application under order
VII rule 11 C.P.C
- The respondent also filed an application under order VIII rule 10 of C.P.C. to
get the orders in the suits immediately as the appellant did not filed his
- Afterwards the learned Trial Judge dismissed the application given under
order VIII Rule 10 C.P.C and also the application filed under Section 151 of C.P.C.
whereas concerning to the application under order VII rule 11 C.P.C the learned
Trial Judge allowed the appellant to file his written statement.
- after the aforesaid order passed aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed
revision petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh [Indore Bench].
Held by The Supreme Court
- Hon'ble High Court confirmed the order of learned Trial Judge and
revised the order passed by the learned Trial Judge that the appellant
should file his written statement and also observed that the trial court
should frame issues of laws and facts arising out of pleadings and the
trial court should record its finding on the preliminary issues in
accordance with the law before proceeding to try the suit on the facts.
- after the decree given by the High court the appellant and an appeal
before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
The common question arose after the appeals made before the Supreme Court that
whether an application under order VII rule 11 C.P.C ought to be decided on the
allegations in the plaint and filing of the written statement by the defendant
is irrelevant and unnecessary.
Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. deals with rejection of plaint it provides some
condition under which the plaint can be rejected, in the aforesaid matter the
appellant filed the application relying on clause (a) and (d) of VII rule 11 of
- Where it does not disclose a cause of action;
- Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that A perusal of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. makes it
clear that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an
application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can
exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. at any stage of the
suit-before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at
any time before the conclusion of the trial.
For the purposes of deciding an
application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C. the
averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the
written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a
direction to file the written statement without deciding the application under
Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the
exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court.
Therefore it is clear from the aforesaid order that it was beyond the
jurisdiction vested in the court as well as it was seen as a procedural
irregularity and Hon'ble court also said that the concerned High Court has also
not looked upon the aforesaid aspect which was given later by the Supreme Court
and the court set aside all the previous orders and remit the case back to the
Trial Court for deciding the application under order VII rule 11 of C.P.C on the
basis of averments in the plaint after affording an opportunity of being heard
to the parties in accordance with law. Hence the appeal was allowed.
Case from the view point of: Rejection of plaint
The aforesaid case is very much important from the perspective of rejection of
plaint under order VII rule 11 of C.P.C. as the case cleared about the
jurisdiction of the court in the aforesaid matter that the direction to file
written statement without deciding the application under VII rule 11 of C.P.C.
is a procedural irregularity and also it stated that the relevant fact which
should be looked on deciding the plaint is averments in the plaint.
Let's look upon all the grounds which are given in the Code of Civil Procedure
1908 Order VII which talk about the Plaint that how it should be made, its
content, relief sought, procedure of admitting the plaint etc. however in rule
11 of order VII rejection of plaint is mentioned where 6 grounds are mentioned
on the basis of which the respondent claims that the plaint should be rejected,
- Where it does not disclose a cause of action; (as per the bare act)
- Where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being
required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by
the court, fails to do so;
- Where the relief claimed is properly valued by the plaint is written
upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by
the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by
the Court, failed to do so;
- Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by
- Where it is not filed in duplicate;
- Where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9;
In rule 12 its mentioned that where a plaint is rejected the judge shall record
an order and mention the reason behind the rejection of the plaint but in the
above case the written statement has been asked without even deciding the
application of order VII rule 11 and the case cleared that such practice should
not take into the consideration after aforesaid order passed by Hon'ble Supreme
Court and also this rule can be applied in any stage of the case. In a case
before the Calcutta High Court, Selina Sheehan v. Hafez Mohammad Fateh Nashib
the plaint was rejected even after it was numbered and instituted as a suit.
Importance of Order VII Rule 11 With Respect to Pleadings
Judicial time is very precious and specially in our country and it should be
managed in the most efficient way it can't be, sham litigation not only waste
the time of the court but also cause unwarranted prejudice and harm to parties
arrayed as defendants in such litigation therefore in order to deal with such
problems such as sham litigation the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 provides with
order VII rule 11 in short O7 R11 it's like a special remedy for the courts to
dismiss the suit at threshold without further proceeding such as recording
evidence and conducting further trial .
With the remedy on basis of the evidence adducted if it is satisfied that the
action must be terminated on any grounds contained in the provision of order VII
rule 11 the court do so and save its crucial time and avoid sham litigations.
The grounds such as 11[b] if the compensation amount which is being demanded by
the plaintiff is lesser than the necessary amount. Rule 11[c] where the plaint
can be rejected if it has not been duly stamped and authorized and if the person
is not able to make up the deficiency he can apply as mendicant for continuing
the suit but also the reasonable time is being given by the court to amend the
plaint and correct it.
In clause 11[d] if the suit is barred by any law of limitation, the plaint of
such a suit can be amended at the hearing. It is the duty of the court to check
whether it is accordance with the law of limitation or not, also when it can be
shown by the plaintiff that the suit was filed by the plaintiff is within the
time period of limitation the provision of the aforesaid order 7 will not be
attracted because it will become the question of law and facts.
Furthermore clause 11[e] requires that the copy of the plaint along with the
original one should be filed by the plaintiff while instituting any plaint, the
plaint can be rejected if the plaintiff fails to attach copies of plaint. Also
rule 11[f] states that if the plaintiff does not follow order VII rule 9 of the
code which is the procedure of admitting the plaint the plaintiff should attach
all the required document and its list and number of copies required by the
code, the plaint can be rejected.
As the Judiciary is among the three organs of the government which are known to
be the pillars of democracy the smooth working of judiciary is very much
important as well as if we look up to the burden of cases the time is very
crucial therefore in that manner also, we can say that the O7 R11 of C.P.C is
important regarding to the pleadings. On the other hand, the O7 R11 also gives a
viewpoint to any plaint that it should contain all the required contents and
must in accordance with O7 so it could not come to the category of aforesaid
rule and not get rejected.
Through this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that judicial time
is crucial one, and that courts are bound to reject sham plaints to avoid
wastage of judicial time. It has clarified that the power of the courts under O7
R 11 are mandatory in nature and can be exercised at any stage of the suit,
either before registering the plaint, or after issuing summons to the defendant,
or before conclusion of the trial.
Litigation also go with the option of seeking rejection of plaint if the suit
fails to give a valid cause of action in the plaint accordance with the O7 R11
but also we have to remember that the application of giver order and rule must
be practiced very carefully and must keep the points given by Supreme Court in
the case of Saleembhai v. state of Maharashtra
and there should be no
procedural irregularity and no plaint should suffer injustice due to wrong
application of O7 R11.